Ovid and Hesiod are two poets, one Greek and one Roman, who both wrote poems detailing the creation of the universe. This essay will discuss each of these poets and their accounts beginning with a detailed analysis of each writing, which would not be complete without a comparison of the similarities and differences between the two accounts. Finally, this essay considers the impact that the intended audience may have had on the writing of the accounts.
The Greeks experienced the land, the sky and the ocean. They experienced the sun rising in the East and setting in the West and determined from this that there must be a circular path being followed by both the sun and the stars. The world, to them, was a disc-like land mass, with a dome shaped sky, surrounded by water and a path below the landmass (Hard, 2004). Analysing Hesiod’s writing it is clear that he has based his account on the understanding of the world from a Greek perspective in 600BC.
Hesiod’s account of the creation of the physical Universe involves the Greek Gods, this is known as a mythological approach. He describes how in the beginning there was chaos, continues to describe how earth came from chasm as did Tartaros and Eros and moves through the creation of different physical aspects of the universe referring to them as living beings that are born from these original 3 and not just physical characteristics of the universe. For example, the sky is represented by the being Heaven.
127 our experts are availableright now
Of the three beings originally created from chasm, Gaia is the most important and is the manifestation (Goddess) of the physical aspect of earth. Tartaros and Eros are both ‘created’ before any others as they serve a purpose in explaining later events. Eros serves as the enabler of mating and reproduction and thus the creation of everything else, initially through Gaia and later others (Hard, 2004). Tartaros serves to create a prison beneath the land which will later be used to house banished deities (Hard, 2004).
Hesiod then goes on to describe the offspring that Gaia had by herself, the most important for the development of the divine lineage being her son Heaven, who Gaia goes on to court. The first 12 children that are born through Heaven and Earth’s courtship, which are later to be known as the titans, were a group of divine god-like entities that would later go on to become the initial ruling order (Hard, 2004).
After mentioning Gaia and Heavens, first twelve children, Hesiod continues by describing the next children that are born between Heaven and Earth were monsters. In both births three children are born, the first of which being the cyclopes followed by three sons, which had 100 hands and 50 heads (Hard, 2004). The succession shown by the number of children Gaia and Heaven has illustrated a genealogical order between gods (Sale, 1965:668).
Hesiod’s account is very specific as to which beings are involved in which processes of creation. As is evident, Hesiod’s view of the creation of the universe explained creation in terms of a story with mythological beings as opposed to a scientific account. This view was often followed and developed upon by many other early philosophers.
Ovid’s account of the creation of the physical world is from a philosophical view. Ovid begins by describing what the universe was like in the beginning. He explains that the different elements (Earth, Sky, Sea etc) do exist, but are lacking in substance. These elements are, described as being in conflict with each other and lacking order and thus the universe is initially in chaos.
The universe is then described as being brought to order and balance when a single god, who Ovid only refers to as ‘nature’, resolves the conflict by separating air, land and sea, bringing light to the sky and ‘substance’ to the land and sea (McKim, 1985:100). Ovid’s account does not specify which God is involved in the creation, he does not name the individual and he refers to the land, sea and sky as inanimate, he does not, like Hesiod, give them personas. Ovid goes on to describe the progression of the remainder of creation in the same way up until the creation of man.
Upon reaching man’s creation, Ovid presents two views for his/her creation. Initially he provides a similar explanation to that which he has given for the rest of the universe, one single god creating man. Following this, he provides an explanation that is mythological, with Prometheus being involved. The mythological explanation is additionally much more detailed than the initial philosophical view suggesting that Ovid has more interest in the mythological view. This is seen as the point in his poem that Ovid switches from believing in a scientific view of creation, to a mythological one (McKim, 1985:101).
The single god involved in the initial creation (First 77 lines of the poem), is never again mentioned, while mythical beings such as Prometheus are much involved. Thus, by switching his views with the creation of man, a superior being, Ovid is also in a way suggesting that the mythological view of creation is superior as well (McKim, 1985:97).
Despite them seeming to be completely different accounts of the creation of the universe, there exist both differences and similarities between Hesiod and Ovid’s writing.
The first, and most obvious, difference is that the two writers, at least for the majority of the excerpts, have completely opposing ideologies when approaching the story of creation. Ovid, up until man’s creation, writes an entirely philosophical and more scientific account of the creation of the universe with one single god being responsible (McKim, 1985:101). While Hesiod describes creation entirely in terms of mythological beings, giving the physical characteristics of the universe personas and speaking of them being ‘born’.
Hesiod creates a god or goddess to represent every aspect of the physical world. Furthermore, Hesiod provides names for his gods and goddesses and this allows the reader to have a stronger bond with the gods and goddesses being described. Hesiod’s account differs from Ovid’s in that Ovid only talks about a single nameless god.
Another initially evident difference in the two accounts lies in their descriptions of the initial state of the universe itself. Hesiod describes the existence of nothing more than a chasm from which all things emerged, while Ovid suggests that much of the universe did exist already. Hesiod’s vision of the chasm is that of a single, calm and stable entity while Ovid describes the initial universe as different incompatible ‘elements’ in continual conflict and chaos (McKim, 1985:99). Hesiod believes that the universe, in the form of beings emerged from this chasm, while Ovid believed that the ordering of the initial chaos is what led to the creation. It is important to note, however, that Hesiod does not, like Ovid, provide a detailed description of the chasm merely states that it exists.
A further difference is apparent in the way in which the authors write. Hesiod provides merely an account, there is little detail and description in his writings, while Ovid provides much detail and descriptions (Hard, 2004). Similarly, while Ovid specifically details the creation of man, providing us with a number of different theories, Hesiod’s account neglects to even mention man’s creation.
On first observation it is easy to spot the many differences between Hesiod and Ovid’s accounts. However, upon closer inspection, there do exist many similarities as well. The first of which is both Ovid and Hesiod’s acknowledgement of the universe’s existence before the appearance/creation of the physical land/ earth. They additionally both believe that in some way gods, be it a single god or numerous gods, had a hand in the universe’s creation.
Additionally, both Authors describe a similar progression of events in terms of the physical features of the universe, with earth air and sea being the initial creations.
Finally, although Ovid may seem to differ entirely from Hesiod in his approach to creation and this was stated as the initial difference between the two, it is important to note that this changes once he reaches the creation of man. Ovid, at this point, switches to a similar narrative to Hesiod when he begins to account man’s creation as mythological in nature and continues with a mythological account for the remainder of his poem (McKim, 1985:101-102).
As the two poets lived in such different times in different places their intended audiences would be equally different, therefor it is necessary to examine whether the intended audience had any impact on their writing. Additionally, upon reading each of the accounts one could easily make inferences regarding the theological and philosophical views of both Hesiod and Ovid as individuals.
Hesiod was a Greek poet who is thought to have lived around 750 B.C. and thus his theology is likely to have been the same as that of Greek society at the time. The Greeks believed in a pantheon of gods and many stories regarding these gods. Thus, it is not surprising that Hesiod would have written an account of creation using the same types of mythological beings and the stories that he would have heard throughout his life. Additionally, his audience would have been the Greek population of the time and thus his account would need to reflect this one single theology of the society, that of mythology.
Ovid was a Roman poet who was born in 43 B.C, roughly 600 years after Hesiod’s death. Ovid’s theology, as a Roman who lived during the Roman Empire, is likely to have been less ‘limited’ than that of Hesiod. He would have been exposed to numerous religions and numerous different gods. Thus, it is easy to see why he would use a single unnamed god as his basis for the universe’s creation. At the same time his audience would likely have been more diverse than Hesiod’s. It is only when he discusses the creation of man that he moves to a more traditional Roman theology (the belief in a similar pantheon of gods to the Greeks).
In conclusion, when analysing the two poems, it became evident that the differences between them are more evident than the similarities. This is partially due to the differences in the theological and philosophical views of the poets and the influence of the intended audiences.
Bibliography
- Hesiod. Theogony. Translated by: West, M.L.1988. Taken from the SLL2058F course reader (2020), 115 – 153.
- Ovid. Metamorphoses. Translated by: Raeburn,D. 2004. Taken from the SLL2058F course reader (2020), 1.5 – 89.
- Hard, R. 2004. The beginnings of things. The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology. London.
- McKim, R. 1985. Myth against philosophy in Ovid’s account of creation. The Classical Journal 80. 97-108.
- Raeburn, D. 2004. Metamorphoses. 1.5-89.
- Sale,W. 1965. The Dual vision of the “Theogony”. Trustees of Boston University.
- West, M.L. 1988. Theogony. 115-153. Page 2 of 2
